Private criticism is by definition ineffective. It is designed to inform without punish. It is in reality folding, letting Trump win.

Trump is doing a performance. He does everything as a performance without understanding the real life consequences of things.

He insults NATO publicly and wonders why they don't support his war. Why? Because he expects that only the MAGA idiots will observe the performance and is shocked that everyone else observes it and believes it.

The thing is, NATO spend decades learning that the performance IS reality. NATO saw Hitler, thought it was a performance, then paid the cost for thinking that. They saw Stalin and went on guard, finding him to be a real threat based on his words. Same with Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

Europe learned long ago NOT to trust the shmucks that claim they do not really mean their public words. Those words are believed by their own people so it does not matter if the leader was lying, the words they spoke become the truth, if they can push them hard enough.

The GOP used to not be pleased. They have driven out almost every trustworthy Republican, leaving a bunch of toadies in place. No one cares that the toadies secretly know Trump is a shmuck.

The toadies will be punished in November BECAUSE they did not fight back publicly. They could have impeached, they chose not to. Now they will be removed from office because they did not attack Trump.

Choice one: Is this the beginning of a new golden age of Television?

Choice 2: Or are they putting out the same, low quality stuff and when they DO manage to create a hit, do they cancel it after one season?

What am I thinking, of course, choice 2.

The GOP seems to think that Capitalism = mean to poor people, nice to rich people. No. Capitalism = Free market = no tariffs.

Tariffs = Mercantilism.

Capitalism hates Mercantilism. Capitalism was created because Mercantilism did not work, it was created as a replacement for it.

The GOP is not and has not been capitalistic for quite some time.

I disagree with the premise of this post.

1) Chatbots do NOT write well. They copy mediocre professional prose. That is not good writing.

2) For this reason, it is hard to tell them from mediocre professional prose.

3) It is very easy to tell the difference between AI and human poorly written prose. AI doesnot skip spaces by accident. It does not spell dificult words incorrectly. It's prose does not make common apostrophe errors.

4) It is also very easy to tell the difference between Twain, Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, Joyce, Hemingway, etc and AIs - even if tghe AI is trained on them. AI copies style, not genius.

Wow, a couple more changes like this and RING uses will have almost as much rights as people that do not connect their hardware to other company's businesses.

It is not impossible to do microblogging without political crap. But it will take a new, innovative idea.

Personally I think the single algorithm designed for 'engagement' should have variations.

You should be allowed to pick {ragebait/politics} as an option, but also be allowed to select other algorithms, possibly included:

Child
Happy
Business
Moderate

With each option resulting in a different algorithm that enhances/reduces certain types of content.

Let the people decide what they should be spoon fed.
 

"How might the attorney general address these issues?"

By achieving enough name recognition in the general population to win a US House or US Senate election and move to Northern Virginia for the rest of his life, returning "home" to Alabama only for reelection campaigns.

Your argument is not convincing. Saying 'it must have been this cause I can't think of anything else" just makes people think you lack creativity.

The need to find a way to test the hypothesis, not just accept it. I.E. find a group of people from that same area but had a lot of/more sugar as a control.

What? so you plug your keyboard into it?

Would a properly installed firewall stop someone from accessing this via the IP?

Seems to me that is what firewalls are supposed to do - stop random people from accessing IP addresses on your network.

From my minimal web search it appears to me that:
1) the Plaintiff, Global Plasma Solutions appears to make an inferior product and make ridiculous claims for it.
2) The defendant, media company Elsevier published a poor quality review that made ridiculous and unsupported claim about the quality of the review.

In other words, two a-holes fighting.

Technically you are allowed to lie to MOST cops.

But there is a law that makes it illegal (5 years punishment) to lie to certain federal officials, as you referenced.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

This definitely applies to the FBI (lots of cases) and I think it applies to Border agents, but I am not as sure about that. So yes, the border agents that questions him should be able to charge him for lying.

EXCEPT:
The border agents claimed he was not entitled to a lawyer because he was legally not in the US until after he passed customs. He repeatedly asked for one.

If the court holds this to be true (unlikely) than he could argue he was not in their jurisdiction when they questioned him.

If the court says it was not true, then the courts will state anything he said cannot be used as evidence after he asked for a lawyer, including any lies he stated.

If that was what happened, you would be correct. But it is NOT what happened.He did not just try to refuse a search. He also specifically asked for a lawyer. While inside the physical US.

The border patrol stated and said that legally he was not inside the US and therefore did not have the right to a lawyer. They denied him one.

Which means either:

1) (Stupid argument in response to their stupid claim) They are correct and he was not inside the USA so the they did not have jurisdiction which means they cannot charge him with a crime for anything he did. US codes do not apply.

2) (Real argument) They denied him a lawyer when he was asked for one during a search, which means it was an ILLEGAL search and he had the legal right to destroy the evidence as they had no legal right to get it.

This is the actual argument his lawyer is already making.